Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
The cases involved were all named Arizona v. California, and were decided in 1931, 1934, 1936, 1963, 1964, 1966, 1979, 1983, 1984, and 2000. The original decision, 283 U.S. 423 (1931), specified the amount of water to which Arizona was entitled under the Colorado River Compact of 1922.
Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco , 596 U.S. ___ (2022), was a United States Supreme Court case related to the ability of states to defend federal regulations in court. However, rather than resolving the questions presented, the Supreme Court dismissed review of the case as improvidently granted .
Case name Citation Date decided Texaco Inc. v. Dagher: 547 U.S. 1: 2006: Scheidler v. National Organization for Women: 547 U.S. 9: 2006: Ill. Tool Works Inc. v ...
It gave Congressional pre-approval to such allotments, and to sharing any surplus equally between California and Arizona.The specific state allotments in the Boulder Canyon Act were disputed by Arizona until the United States Supreme Court upheld the amount in the 1963 decision in Arizona v. California. [8] Arizona took other steps as well to ...
Pages for logged out editors learn more. Contributions; Talk; Arizona v. City and County of San Francisco, California
Arizona v. United States, 567 U.S. 387 (2012), was a United States Supreme Court case involving Arizona's SB 1070, a state law intended to increase the powers of local law enforcement that wished to enforce federal immigration laws. The issue is whether the law usurps the federal government's authority to regulate immigration laws and enforcement.
Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission , 576 U.S. 787 (2015), was a United States Supreme Court case where the Court upheld the right of Arizona voters to remove the authority to draw election districts from the Arizona State Legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission . [ 1 ]
Smith v. Arizona, 602 U.S. 779 (2024), is a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States case in which the court held that when an expert conveys an absent analyst's statements in support of the expert's opinion, and the statements provide that support only if true, then the statements come into evidence for their truth.